Friday, April 29, 2011
Revolution & democracy today
When looking at the communist revolutions in the Soviet Union & China, & today's revolutions in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, how does society balance the demands of maintaining the democratic process with leaders' attempts to use democracy to further their personal aims? (for instance, Hitler used democracy to destroy the democratic process in Germany)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This question is kind of hard to answer (I’m not 100% sure I understand what it’s asking). I think the question is how does society keep democracy from being manipulated by those in power. In all of the aforementioned revolutions the people (eventually) rose up against their leader. In most of the situations, the leaders had been in power for quite awhile before the revolution. Maybe after so many years of cruel leadership, and a strong enough opposing leader or group, and a common goal (such as the elimination of a certain ruler or government), countries are able to revolt against their government. Ideally, countries learn from poor leadership and establish new laws or positions in order to maintain checks and balances to prevent future problems. In the United States, we elect several different officials for several different positions in the government, so I think it would be hard for just one person or party to control the entire country for their own personal gains. Not only are there so many positions in the government, but they are also all elected by the citizens of the U.S. Also, all of the positions (minus the supreme court justices) have terms and must be reelected to maintain the position, and in some positions (including the presidency) have a limited number of terms that the official may serve. That isn’t saying that our government isn’t without its faults, but I just don’t think it would be too easy for someone to evilly dictate our country. Other countries are different, and those mentioned above will most likely change their laws to only allow a limited number of years for their leaders.
ReplyDeleteI’m sorry if I didn’t answer the question asked and went off on some random tangent. :/
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm not really sure how to answer this question. There are many ways I think that society balances the demands of maintaining the democratic process with leaders' attempts to use democracy to further their personal aims. One way they do it by doing a full blown revolution. This is what happened in Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Tunisia. If the people didn't like what was going on in the government they have every right with democracy to change it. If people disagree on what the person in power is doing. What they are trying to change. The people stand up for what they believe in even it means a loss of lives. In most cases the revolution in general is enough to stop any changes or people who want to gain complete power. Let's say that Obama changed things such that he will remain president as long as possible. He would eliminate the Congress, and House of representatives causing him to have almost all the power. This would probably anger most the citizens of the United States causing them to revolt and not allow Obama to do so. So overall I think that all that society does is revolt until the situation is fix.
ReplyDeleteI think the people just revolt. Plain and simple, if they don't get what they want, then they are going to fight for it. It happens all the time in our everyday lives, when we don't get something we want, then we complain and fight to get it. Of course it's a little bit more serious when talking about revolutions and fighting and stuff like that compared to just complaining. The people in Lybia are obviously not happy with their democracy and they want change. Everybody wants change. It's like the General Will. It can always change with what the people want. I think when people find out what the leader is just trying to satisfy himself rather than what's best for the people, thats when they start to get angry and revolt. Just my opinion.
ReplyDeleteDeep,
ReplyDeleteInteresting point with the Obama thing. I agree that people stand up for what they believe in. Good job!
Jessica,
Hahaha your post made me giggle on the inside. You had some really good points and used several big words that I didn't know the definition to so congrats! haha but seriously you had some really good points in your..uh...post. Ya Good JOB!!!!
I think that society maintains a balance because they are able to make changes if they dont like the government. If society does not like the way a leader is making decisions then they vote so that they are not the leaders any more. This was a hard question to interpret.
ReplyDeleteSociety balances the demands of maintaining the democratic process when leaders try to use democracy to further their personal aims by using physical means. They make it known that they don't agree with what is going on by revolting, which many times results in physical fighting. Once society is fed up and tired of conforming, and once their personal well being is being threatened they will take a stand against the leader of their country and attempt to fix things to their liking such is the situation in the countries of Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Syria.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, this question kinda confused me. So im gonna wing it. Society keeps a balance because if they dont like something, they simply just change it. Back in the day it was hard to get what one wanted, especially when there were controlling people real bad. I seriously dont what else to say, this question confused me!!! Dont judge.
ReplyDeleteDeep,
Thats nice that youre bringing Obama into this man. You make some real good points bro. Good job.
Jessica,
You did very well explaining yourself!!! You had lots of good examples. i liked how you used them to support your stuff.
I think that society keeps a balance with all the demands by people doing what they can to get what they want. Like in your example with Hilter using the democracy to end up getting what he wanted. Once society realizes that they want something, they do what they can to get it.
ReplyDeleteSergio,
I agree, this was a hard question to answer. For winging what you had, it made sense so good job. (:
Jessica,
Wow. You made a lot of sense in your post and you have really good points. You sound very intense about what you were talking with. Good post.
I guess I'm not too sure about what the answer might be for this. I have a couple of theories, but then again, I guess to me it would depend on the country. In terms of keeping someone from going too far, I guess I'd have to look at the U.S.'s example of checks and balances. This keeps us from having a crazy Mubarak or an all powerful dictator. As far as everyone else, revolutions seem to be quite popular. When the dictator passes a certain acceptable point to the people, they revolt in order to take him down and revert the democratic process back to what it previously was. This is effective to a certain point, however, a plan should really be well thought out in the case of winning. A lot of times, I've noticed successful revolutions don't have many plans for after, and that's when another crazy dictator or someone steps in. :/
ReplyDeleteZulema - I definitely agree that physical force has been pretty popular in order to achieve change. I kiiind of wish that people would work more for a solution without violence, but I guess sometimes that isn't possible. :/
ReplyDeleteDeep - I agree for sure, I just wish it wasn't always with the fighting and whatnot. People seem to always look toward violence. I guess it's effective though. Kind of thinking of moving to Canada? Theeey don't have a lot of violence, right? O.o
So...like many people, this question kinda confused me. *Caution: What I'm about to say isn't going to make any sense at all.* I'm going to assume that the question is trying to ask how a society maintains a democratic process from being tampered with my people trying to rise to power. In my opinion, a society like the U.S. maintains a state of slight placidness by enforcing laws. If existing laws don't satisfy or offer a solution to a current problem, new laws can be implemented. Another way, is to keep coercion out of the equation. No one wants to be forced to do something, but when they are this can cause big problems between the forcer and the forcee. Simply, violence isn't the answer.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea why but I believe I might understand the question in a completely different way. My answer to what I believe the question is saying is simple. It seems to be an overall gesture towards a leader's decision making. If there is too much conflict between the people and the systems of government (such as in Tunisia and those other countries and the people having troubles such as no jobs and other matters), then the people will react towards the leader's decision. If the decision is generally viewed upon many people as a good thing (such as Hitler) then the leader can generally get away with their personal plans that they have in mind while keeping a good image. An example of a bad decision (in the mind of a group people) would be Obama's attempt to pass the Health care reform. The general public thought of it as a horrible idea while those who thought it was a great idea were going all out for it. Society can in a way balance things out in a general sense of 2 ways. One is protesting against it and voting against it so it doesn't pass. (This form is seen rarely!). The second way is to use violence. As one old man said "Violence is not the answer... It is THE SOLUTION!!!" I'm kidding it is never the solution or the answer and never will be. Society is too corrupt and believe that violence is the most effective way to get the leader's attention in order for their concerns to become heard.
ReplyDeleteCuz (Stefani)
ReplyDelete- I agree with your post when you say that the people pass new laws in order to change corrupt ones and/or better their country. I also agree with you that violence is not the answer, however, I’m afraid that the rest of the world doesn’t feel that way. Good Job Cuz ☺
Sergio
- I agree with your post as well. After centuries of corrupt government, the people eventually get it right and make it so it’s extremely difficult to “corrupt” again, and simple to remove anyone unfit for the job. Good post ☺
Like many of you who have answered this question, I too was confused as what this question was really saying. I then asked Mr. Bell to explain it and he said "Basically how do you keep a tyrant from becoming one in a democratic system?"
ReplyDeleteMy answer to that is that to keep a tyrant from becoming one in a democratic system one must make sure that part of the power does lie in the hands of the people because the person in charge could manipulate that to her/his liking. Also if you don't like something then change it.
If that didn't make sense I'm sorry but I'm still not quite sure I understand.
Sally- I agree with you completely. I agree that the way people get what they want in most cases has to do with revolting. That is exactly what is happening today.
ReplyDeleteZulema- I agree with you also. That is how society tells the world they do not like something. They revolt. Once the revolting occurs actions need to happen in order to solve the problem.
Like several of my classmates, I am confused with this question. I've read it over and over again so let's hope that what I say can answer at least some of it. I believe that society pretty much has the power to do anything all people were together to achieve their goal of getting what they want. Society seems to make sure that things are still in balance and not only one person or some people are in charge, like it is in the U.S. In other countries, eventually a revolution comes about which totally challenges whoever is power forcing them to no longer be in power. Society has more power than most people think and they definitely can stop leaders from using democratic attempts to further their personal aims and still maintain a democratic process.
ReplyDeleteSergio- I totally love your post because I think that's how most people were feeling about this question. I kinda do get what you're saying though.
ReplyDeleteTeresita- I'm glad you at least understood what Mr. Bell was asking, but even in the way that he rephrased it, I didn't understand. So good job on your post.
Zulema - I have to say that I agree with most of what you said, aside from not fully understanding the question. I do agree that certain leaders may try to further their personal aims by using physical means. If people don't agree with what is being done in a society they revolt/ protests, which may lead to physical fighting, at least in some instances. This is greatly seen in countries such as Egypt, Libya, Tunsia, and Syria. Good thoughts.
ReplyDeleteJessica (Cuz) - So I'm not even sure where to start cause your post was pretty legit. More times than likely people will rise up their leader if they're not happy with current conditions. They rise up against their leader after their leader has shown hardships to his people. After people revolt they try to establish a society that meets their standards. I never thought about how hard it would be for someone, or a group of people, to use the democratic systems for their own personal gains. They would have to worry about all aspects of government; including people and laws. Good thoughts. :)
The only way to keep that balance would be to keep a check on the leader of the moment. By changing leaders every once in a while. Like how the United States holds an election every four year. By changing leaders, then if one leader destroys the balance, then they can be removed, and someone else can restore the balance.
ReplyDeleteZulema- That is some very good points you pointed out there.
Teresita- By keeping the power among the people, instead of keeping it in only one person then the power is more balanced out. Good points.
I think that this means that the only way to keep a person from having all the power, the people must also have power not just the tyrant. I also think that if something isn't happy with how the government is, they need to do something to change it. I also think that there needs to be a say in who will rule and the people should have a say so something like elections should be held.
ReplyDeleteCarlos: I liked your post and I agree that there should be elections so the people have a say in who their ruler is.
Teresita: You're views were the same as mine, so I agree with you. Good job!!
There really is no way to balance this because once the person has obtained power to a certain extent where they have the majority if not all of it, then the power is completely there. We don't run into this problem in the United States because of the whole checks & balances shindig, but if there were someone who was to be elected into power, then got rid of these checks & balances or convinced others to support getting rid of them then society cannot balance any of what they do and maintain their democratic process. This is why as a society it is important to realize when someone is using the democratic process for their own personal gain, which is something that the Germans didn't realize or do anything about during Hitler's rule.
ReplyDeleteKeyli,
ReplyDeleteI was a little confused with this question myself.
You make a good argument about society being able to do anything if they are all unified. However, we have to remember that not always will a society be unified against or for a certain thing.
Although, yes, society can change whoever is controlling their country, we have to remember that this often happens over an extensive amount of time, and not always is their goal achieved. Even though our views differ, you still did a pretty good job of answering this question and supporting your opinion.
Sydney,
I like how you stated that not only one person has to have the power, but the people may also have the power, which is what is often forgotten. When people lose power, they often don't realize it at first and the realization comes after their democratic process as been removed.
I believe that people now and back then they would also try to fight against the people they did not like. Today, people use democracy to try to help others in need. They think that people in that type of government has to help them. Basically, I am really confused on what the question is asking for.
ReplyDeleteKeyli-
ReplyDeleteI am also confused about the question. I do agree with you that the in some point every country will have a revolution start.
Sergio-
I like how your so honest about just winging the question. Yet, it's true that people back in that day had little say about anything that goes on in their country.
Well shucks! That's a heck of a question. I’ll do my very best to answer it to the best of my understanding. I think society has to not only balance their leader but control him/her to. Thankfully the in our country we have a system that doesn’t allow for our leader to “use” the system quite as much as say, Russia. I think the more developed a country is the more likely they will be able to handle this sort of situation. Hitler was able to use democracy because of the era that he ruled in. It was a time were the politics was very easily manipulated. I think that with more education the people can put a stop to any sort of revolution. Since we are talking about a democracy here there is voting, laws and bills. If the system is corrupt, there is now a way to right that wrong.
ReplyDeleteKelli- I always appreciate the honesty and wit in your blog post. I think that consensus is: EVERYONE is completely confused by this question.
ReplyDeleteCarlos- I think you made some valid points. However good our system might be. Not everyone will agree with it. What works for one country might simply not transfer over to another country. Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteIrma--I liked what you said. It is true, our democratic society is able to elect our leaders in the postions we want them, and if we don't like them then we simply don't vote for them.
ReplyDeleteDiana-- Like you and many others I wasn't quite sure about what the question was asking either. I agree with what you said and how when people don't like somthing they fight against it or in other words, revolt.
Society attempts to get rid of the leader who is abusing their democratic power, or in other words revolt. The key behind the word 'revolution' is the fact that the people rise up and attempt to put new rules into place and make lots of changes. There are government systems that are good and bad, and some that are better than others, but none of them are perfect. Thus democracy is not a perfect form of governing, so there are always going to be leaders who come along and try to abuse the power given them, so society then realizes 'oh hey, this isn't good, we should probably change something so this doesn't happen again.'As some of my classmates have added, the US has the use of checks and balances that make it so that the emergence of a dictator is pretty much not going to happen within the states. However other places that don't have the same government as ours have to resort to protesting and making their opinions known via rallies and revolting. Basically, if a leader isn't doing what the people like then they strive to remove that leader from position or change the law.
ReplyDeleteKatherine--- I agree that there can really be no change if the government is corrupt. I think that's what we're seeing in revolution movements over in Libya and middle eastern countries today.
ReplyDeleteKeyli--Society is stronger than people think. I like how you addressed that in your comment. I often think that society is viewed as being unable to make change, yet that's not true.
It definitely is kind of hard to answer this question. But to my understanding, I think many countries like Egypt and Libya try to create democracy, to a point where they can control their leaders. Now, I'm sure it wasn't hard to figure that out, but what I'm trying to say is, that countries "try" and establish something that could balance the demands of the democratic process. But if the people just stand and watch, then I can see why someone like Hitler, was able to take over, when he became chancellor. The people of Germany just watched and were fearful, so it was easy for Hitler to take over. Of course, there must be other systems that help anyone from becoming a dictator within the US, like checks and balances, but other places have the same system as the US.
ReplyDeleteKatherine: I agree Katherine, if the people are more educated, then it would be harder for any dictator to manipulate the people.
ReplyDeleteCarlos: That is true Carlos, I think that people should check up on their leaders, just in case something is being planned that could destroy the country's democracy. But the idea that someone else comes in to restore it, is kind of hard to believe. If someone else were to step up, then it would eventually be for his/her gain.
Sydney- I agreed with your post. It stated your opinions well. Good Job!
ReplyDeleteStefani (Pez)- Your post was legit. I think you are the only one who understood. Great Job!
Sergio, I completely agree with you. I thought the same thing too. I
ReplyDeleteDiana, you have a good point. People do fight when they dont like something.
My answer is rather short and to the point, which makes me question whether or not I actually understand what's being asked, but here it is. Before society can do anything, that have to understand what's going on. If there's not individuals out there who can recognize that a leader is being like, "hey let's vote to not vote" than there's going to be a problem. Really, society just has to be smart it enough to figure it all out. The issue is that as a whole I don't think most groups of people throughout the world are educated enough to stand up to the intelligent dictators that are causing all the problems. For those who are realizing what's going on, they've got to be the ones educating everyone else that what's trying to be fixed in their minds isn't really the way it should be. That's obviously the difficult part that is actually almost impossible to achieve under the control of a ruler who might make you "go missing" if he finds out.
ReplyDeleteKeyli,
ReplyDeleteYes, it would be nice if people could try to remove a dictator from position or get him to change what he's doing, but its not like that's at all easy to do. If it was then all of the mentioned revolutions wouldn't be occurring. In addition, in the countries that these issues are occurring in, many of these people aren't qualified to determine how exactly things should be or how to go about trying to better the situation. The motive is obvious, but how to accomplish such a thing is definitely not and I think that's what most need to realize.
Katherine,
I agree with your reference to Hitler; he was able to successfully use democracy against his people to get his way because he knew how to manipulate them. However, I wouldn't overestimate society's vulnerability is today. If someone smart enough came around, who's to say he OR SHE wouldn't be able to do the same thing. Like I mentioned to Keyli, of course the goal is to keep a leader in the right path, but that is way easier said than done.
I don't know what exactly the question is asking or how to exactly answer it. I would have to say countries try to create democracy in such a way that they control their leaders instead of their leaders controlling them completely. It would depend on the country some countries would be fearful and let anyone who came in just take power and not try to stop them. For example seeing HItler and what he was capable of doing people were probably intimidated by him and therefore just let him gain power because he wasn't voted into power but he legally gained it. Now I don't know if that answers the question, but that's what I think.
ReplyDeleteFranklin,
ReplyDeleteI also didn't know how to answer this question. What you have to say is true if people stand around and watch then individuals like Hitler will come and take over the country.
Kelli,
I find it interesting how you stated that they have a plan on how to get rid of the dictator but not a plan for afterwards. I think you're right, countries are successful but once they are they don't know what to do anymore and another dictator comes in. The reason I think they don't have an after plan is because they probably aren't very sure that they will succeed but they will rather fail.
Franklin,
ReplyDeleteYour points seem somewhat interesting yet misleading. A country wouldn't attempt to control their leader because they are the ones who chose them unless they were dictative. Good post nonetheless.
Rosie,
I would have to say that your point is not completely true. It only becomes relative when the leader is a dictator. Nice job though.